I couldn't answer the final question to your video, because I'm not well-read on Nietzsche. But I think it's good to address the context of Buddhism in the sense of how it's practiced, because that might give a different perspective on philosophies in general; they're attempts at solving our problems, but it seems that they rely so much on idiosyncratic arguments rather than pragmatics. You can see this in the way "anatta" and "dukkha" are treated in the suttas. Firstly, the three "characteristics" aren't "characteristics" or even "concepts" - that is, the Buddha didn't frame them that way. He used them as teaching tools; they're treated as perceptions which the Buddha instructed his disciples to attend to so as to bring about dispassion and thus liberation. That is, they are a tool used for a purpose. We attend to the perception of anatta to break down the illusion of self, not to merely posit a view that it doesn't exist or it "is merely" the khandhas; what the Buddha called the "I-making" is something we do regardless of our philosophical viewpoints, and saying that one "is" merely the khandhas is not necessarily headed in the right direction. The task is to observe the tendency and abandon it, not just to reframe it; one doesn't experience the sense of self and say "I'm just the khandhas", one looks at the sense of self, sees how it's constructed, and actually lets go of it - if one is able to do so; in other words, one sees the sense of self in terms of how it arises in the khandhas (as a feeling, a perception, an action) and takes it apart by constructing another feeling, perception, and action (anatta). On this note it's worth noting the impact our self-esteem might have on this: having a negative self-image may lead us to want to *destroy* the sense of self, which actually causes more suffering under the pretense that "I'll only be happy once my self is destroyed", and that's nihilistic not to mention still rooted in "self". Conversely, having a *healthy* self-image (which is not corrupted by narcissistic tendencies) may make it easier to let go of "self" because we know that, although it's pleasant, it's empty (virtue is partly a matter of cultivating a healthy sense of self, so throwing any thought of self out the window might not be wise). On that note, dukkha isn't necessarily treated just as a *characteristic* of existence which we "return to" over and over until we abandon desire. Dukkha can be treated as a perception in the sense of perceiving the unsatisfactori-*ness* of things so as to, again, inspire a sense of dispassion towards the objects of our desires. But dukkha in the context of the four noble truths is also looking at the experience of ("internal") dukkha itself, which is caused solely by our wrong actions which in turn are caused by wrong understanding - "clinging" itself is a kind of action of the mind, which we must stop doing in order to realize nirvana. This kind of clinging is abandoned by insight, not in the sense of intellectual understanding, but a clear and sharp understanding strong enough to make us stop picking up our many burdens Thus we have trainings, such as "loving-kindness" - we don't abandon "revenge" merely for the sake of adopting a moral standpoint, we abandon revenge to abandon our anger and our delusion that anger will help us with our problems. Further, we replace it with loving-kindness to brighten the mind and provide the foundation necessary to free oneself from dukkha amidst that which is marked by dukkha. In other words, life can be painful, and loving-kindness can counteract the tendency to try to correct that painfulness by anger rooted in craving and delusion. Therefore loving-kindness is not just a standpoint of non-violence, but a point of training and cultivation towards nirvana. Through loving-kindness, the "self" is understood and cultivated in a way until it's totally abandoned. The point here is that, unlike a lot of philosophers we're familiar with, the Buddha taught to train a large group of people, and his teachings are tools meant to be applied beyond the scope of intellectual study or argument; understanding doesn't merely come from study. It seems that this approach in itself - that understanding and liberation comes from training, which itself involves a cultivation of virtue - is enough to take Buddhism out of the realm of nihilism.
Zen is especially Nietzschean. They really take the "no idols, no dogma" stance even further than other Buddhist schools of thought. I believe an old Zen master once said, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." Obviously he didn't mean that literally, but just the idea that you should not get caught up in the mindlessly complacent follower mentality that people often fall into with organized religion. Zen stresses raw firsthand experience, direct engagement of the individual with reality, dispensing with the abstract concepts and dogmas laid down by gurus or priests. They also put a lot of emphasis on the limits of rationality, as reflected in their often puzzling and nonsensical-seeming Zen koans. Nietzsche echoes this sensibility in Thus Spake Zarathustra (and elsewhere I'm sure) wherein he says that life is divinely, joyously, playfully irrational.
Great video. I find this topic quite fascinating. I think it's worth also considering the similarity between Nietzsche's amor fati and the equanimity described by Shakyamuni Buddha as "the middle path."
Well done! Having practiced Buddhism and now studying western philosophy, I’m finding their understanding of Buddhism to be very surface level, academic, and non-experiential. Sure Schopenhauer was a nihilist, perhaps the first doomer, and yes from many of my reading of Nietzsche I’ve seen some Buddhist ideas. But, frankly his understanding of Buddhism seems juvenile, but I’ll admit that I find his writing painful to read. Interesting to think about. Thanks!
I’m currently reading Der Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse and it’s a cathartic to see his views of self through the works of Schopenhauer, Nietzche, and Eastern Philosophy (which he studied in-depth and wrote books on if I recall correctly) from I assume he drew inspiration. It’s always fun to connect the dots.
Thanks for this well done synthesis. I was just referencing one of my favorite books--the one by Antoine Panaioti--and thought I would do a UA-cam search for anything with Panaioiti's name. That's how I stumbled upon your video.
often overlooked but the Buddha came from a warrior cast and many of his analogies are about heroically overcoming the kleshas like the enemy on the battlefield.
@@arnavsarkar3954 caste didn't exist but khstriya and and other varnas are mentioned in tripitaka which is oldest buddhist text. These terms were also mentioned vedas and upanishads that predates tripitaka. Vaishya and khstriya were mentioned in ashoka edicts
@@arnavsarkar3954Kshatriya/Khattiya/Khatriya/Rajputto are the same thing used to denote the Nobles warrior/ruler class. Also no one consider dravividan low life ambedkarites as Buddhist anywhere outside your dalitverse.
The "Buddhism" Nietzsche (via Schopenhauer) was describing was not Siddhartha Gautama's "be your own light" Buddhism Philosophy, but the disciples evolved deification of Buddha and Buddhism, as well as Buddhism conjoined with other pre-established or already held far eastern (Chinese/Japanese) religious convictions. Such as adding their ideas of god/gods, heaven and hells, etc. with Siddhartha Gautama Buddhism. In another words... Buddha taught an earthly life philosophy to find a way to deal with (varying degrees of) "suffering" from ones own personal strength and "the middle way" to not suppress, but calm emotions. ("Tune your sitar strings not too tight or too loose, but the middle way." etc.) Buddha taught a philosophy, or was an earthly, self-help-type guru, not a priest or heavenly prophet of religion. However, the acolytes, disciples, and later teachers increasingly deified the Buddha, (a 500 year precursor, Jesus-like figure) to a higher and higher status, claiming miracles, the acquisition of relics, temples of worship, supplication pilgrimages, etc. and transforming/formalizing a philosophy into a religion, completely missing Buddha's point of "you don't need to torture yourself, nor look to the heavens for earthly peace, I'm not a god, go forth and be your own light." So (IMO) Siddhartha Gautama would (passively) argue against Nietzsche's 19th century pigeonholing of (*500 bce) Buddhism differently than his later teachers would, but both would disagree on different grounds.
Thank you for this informative video. I agree with you on several points, however this video was most valuable in the points where I disagreed with it, since it made me review and recheck my understanding of Buddhism, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. In my opinion, there are several inaccuracies and misunderstandings that occur and they occur by no fault of your own, but because the sources you have used present a rather distorted view. Both Buddhism and Schopenhauer place an emphasis on suffering, but both also emphasize the origin of this suffering as attachment (Schopenhauer more often calls it a „craving”), which does lead to dissatisfaction. Here Schopenhauer was presented like he has absolutely no positive philosophy, which is not true. His ethics of compassion are very similar to Buddhist ethics, and Schopenhauer’s philosophy cannot be reduced to a mere commentary upon the first noble truth. What his ethics subscribe to has essential parallels with the eightfold path. Both ultimately accentuate compassion, but this is a type of compassion which is entirely antithetical to Nietzsche. Ethical teachings of this type are by definition life-defying in Nietzsche’s terms, since they lead to a “spiritual weakening”. In contrast, both Schopenhauer and the Buddha would see Nietzsche’s ethical observations as a terrific inversion of morality with very dangerous consequences. In connection with this, Elman’s claim that “Schopenhauer is a thorough-going nihilist” is entirely wrong since Schopenhauer was very much concerned with finding a basis for morality, and half of his writings are dedicated to the formation of a dependable form of ethics. It is also not correct to say that Schopenhauer, in contrast to Buddhism, calls for a “destruction” of the self. He believed in the Kantian notion of a Transcendental Ego, and in key passages from Parerga and Paralipomena, he suggests that this Ego remains and transcends into nothingness. But the notions of the I, both in Schopenhauer and Buddhism (and also in Nietzsche) are very complex so I wont get into this here. What I will say is that Schopenhauer and Buddhism emphasize the illusory nature of reality, and the need to cultivate proper perception in the midst of this illusory reality, which to Nietzsche seems like a life-denying nihilism. Nietzsche celebrates “joyful illusions” and does not seek an escape from pain and suffering (at least in his philosophy). He cannot separate Schopenhauer’s teachings from the Buddha’s teachings, because both begin from an identical empirical observation of existence. What Nietzsche criticizes is their critique of this empirical observation and their attempt to evade it. Consequently, Nietzsche would not and could not agree with Schopenhauer’s advice to silence the will’s cravings, and with the Buddha’s urge to dis-attachment. Even on an aesthetic level, Nietzsche criticizes this anti-attachment behavior, when he says that someone should be enflamed by passion, rather than be distanced from it, in a vein similar to Stendhal (see Genealogy of Morality, III, 6). For Nietzsche to be an antipode of the Buddha, he’d need to be “unawakened”, as a commentator rightfully observed. And Nietzsche would agree. He does not seek to “awaken” from this reality and disparage its illusions. Infact, what he ascribes to is a Dionysian intoxication with the world as it is. One of the "similarities" that was emphasized in this video is actually a huge point of tension between a nietzschean and a buddhist paradigm. The buddhists characterize samsara as a cycle that needs to be overcome and as something that has to be escaped. Hence, this is the life-denying aspect that Nietzsche saw in buddhism. On the contrary, the eternal return is something that one must always wish to return to. An affirmation that says "Yes!" to each and every aspect of one'ss life, repeating continuously. This type of amor fati is devilishly antagonistic to the buddhist understanding. It almost sounds like the ultimate anti-vision that Mara could reveal to the Buddha, and that the Buddha would shudderingly reject (in contrast, Nietzsche would react very aggressively specifically to the notion of Parinirvana). On the concept of Śūnyatā: Schopenhauer’s understanding of nothingness and emptiness is very complicated, and, similar to Buddhism, it’s rather incorrect to interpret it simply as “literal nothingness”. Schopenhauer is clear that the nothingness and emptiness that the enlightened perceive is beyond description (and beyond the principle of sufficient reason) and that it cannot be neatly affixed in the categories of being (such as substance/quality/quantity and etc.). Buddhists often hide behind the notion that “westerners misunderstand Buddhism and they translate it’s concepts into nihilism” (and this really is true in some cases, Hegel being one famous example). However, the Buddhist path has been interpreted as nihilistic even in the east. Ever since their first contact, the adherents of Confucianism have tried to refute Buddhism times and times again because they interpreted the nihilistic Buddhist tendencies as detrimental to society. And this is but one example. Several more debates exist between Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism against Buddhism. Furthermore, the very schools of Buddhism themselves place the label “nihilism” upon eachother. In my opinion, the label “nihilism” is philosophically useless since people use it as a kind of ad hominem which (ironically) contains no substantial critique that would foster productive discussion. Nietzsche, Jacobi and Shestov are one of the few philosophers that actually know what they mean when they use the term. Back on topic, where Schopenhauer truly misunderstands Buddhism is when he comments upon asceticism. When it comes to asceticism (where Schopenhauer’s understanding is much closer to that of Jainism), Buddhism’s middle path is substantially different from what the German philosopher has in mind. Also, in some teachings of Buddhism there is a lot less metaphysical speculation than in Schopenhauer’s doctrine. Some points of the Pali canon can actually be read as a critique towards metaphysics and this is a critique that is indeed very similar to the critiques that Kant and later Nietzsche will launch. Additionally, when it comes to similarities, what Nietzsche likes in Buddhism is exactly what he likes in Schopenhauer: That they’re both apatheisic. Moreover, Nietzsche viewed Buddhism in a manner similar to the way he saw Stoicism. Both are indisputably a nihilistic slave type of morality, however, they are a morality of a still higher type than the more naïve and vengeful mainstream Christian type of morality. In conclusion, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer understood a lot more from the eastern philosophies than modern scholars give them credit for. They knew what they stood for and how these philosophies differ from and/or support their personal philosophical worldviews. When it comes to the advertisement of compassion, Schopenhauer’s analysis of this ethical term and his tracing of it throughout the Christian and eastern teachings is brilliant. Similarly, Nietzsche’s existential awareness was severely acute and he was well informed about how this awareness reverberated in other philosophical and religious ideas throughout the world. I would once again like to thank you for the video, since it made me want to look further into these thinkers and form a clear understanding about the topics in which they agreed, and in those in which they disagreed. EDIT: Fixed typos and added the example of Parinirvana.
Thank you for this write up and critique! I really enjoyed it. In my research for this video I don't remember coming across this position so I'm glad you raised it here. You mentioned that the issue is rooted in the sources and that modern scholars don't give Nietzsche and Schopenhauer enough credit for their understandings of Eastern philosophy. Are you familiar with any that do and do so well? If so, I'd enjoy reading it and could offer it in the description as a source critical of the information presented here. If not, no worries and thanks again for your thoughtful comment.
For Schopenhauer, as an initial step towards a more comprehensive research I can suggest the chapter "Nothingness, Negativity, and Buddhism in Schopenhauer" by Eric Nelson and the book "Schopenhauer's Compass" by Urs App (there App does a good job at determining Schopenhauer's similarities and differences with key eastern concepts). In "Infinite Resignation" Eugene Thacker establishes a pessimistic interpretation of Buddhism that he defends rather convincingly (but the arguments in the book are scattered and idiosyncratic). As for Nietzsche scholarship, it is a mess. It has an ambivalent quality because scholars either want to defend the eastern religions from Nietzsche's critique by saying that he did not understand them (this is not just an east/west thing, christian apologists use this "argument" aswell), or some scholars want to present Nietzsche in a more tame and positive light, claiming that his philosophy is synergistic and compatible with a certain eastern teaching (these scholars will usually claim that Nietzsche was not aware of this similarity because... again, he did not understand X teaching properly). You've already read the most common sources, but others I can recommend at the top of my head are Freny Mistry's "Nietzsche and Buddhism", Graham Parkes's anthology "Nietzsche and Asian Thought" and the great Thomas Brobjer's "Nietzsche's Reading About Eastern Philosophy". But most importantly, I recommend reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche firsthand. They are eminently readable, brilliant authors that present their opinions on matters in raw form and make the reader intimately aware with what they agree with and what they find detestable. It is tempting to read secondary literature on arcane philosophers and their complicated arguments, but with these two, one can never go wrong by choosing to spend time on one of their primary texts. EDIT: I was reminded about two sources I originally forgot to mention. Firstly, regarding Nietzsche, I found the essay "Beyond good and evil? A Buddhist critique of Nietzsche" by David Loy to be very interesting. Secondly, there is a dissertation by Benjamin Dillon Schluter titled "Siddhartha's Smile: Schopenhauer, Hesse, Nietzsche" which explores the converging and diverging points of the three philosophies through the literary prism of Herman Hesse. The text is useful and thought-provoking as regards the current topic, since in it one can clearly see the points in which specific Buddhist teachings connect with Schopenhauer or Nietzsche, and also where the points of tensions are (this is explored through contrast). - Additionally, a short and easy to read text by Ryan Smith examines Nietzsche's relationship to Buddhism in a critical manner. Smith's text comes as a review to "Nietzsche and Buddhist Philosophy", a book by Antoine Panaioti which you have cited (Panaioti's scholarly opinion being similar to that of Benjamin Elman and Freny Mistry).
I had similar thoughts to your comment. I'm by no means an expert, I appreciate the similarities presented in the video, but also agree that there are underlying differences among those similar beliefs
Interestingly, i investigated this VERY matter, back in University. "Nietzsche, Non-Duality, & the Nature of our Neurosis." There's QUITE a story to the whole thing :)
I love listening to this carefully but this is not always true about suffering life or happiness. Happiness can and is often felt on a continuum and it never goes away.
The most important concept I ever learned when studying Nietzsche is this. You see, when Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, and most religions built a two-dimensional philosophy, Nietzsche on the other hand created a three-dimensional philosophy or religion. Aristotle and the rest created a list of principles or ideas that could easily be put into a chart or a list of principles. When reading Nietzsche on the other hand, you have to imagine a pool of stars on the ground. From this pool of stars rises and forms a humanoid. This humanoid of stars continues to form until it can run a few steps and then shatters into the puddle of stars again. This happens over and over again for an eternity. You see Nietzsche creates these stars by creating inverted and alternate concepts than the ones we believe in. He reaffirms healthy ideas and then creates their opposites. These create the Rorschach test you personally peer into eventually.
Ok I don't think I understand this. Religions and philosophies exist as a means of making sense of the chaos of life. What you're saying is Nietzsche created a new philosophy that wasn't about making sense out of life, but instead reflected the chaos?
The big question in my mind is would Nietzsche view Buddhism as life affirming? Buddhism ultimately seeks to escape the samsaric cycle of rebirth, while Nietzsche's thought experiment of amor fati is characterized by an affirmative yes to all of life and to the notion of eternally reoccurring into the same life endlessly. If amor fati is to be the key to understanding what Nietzsche would view as ultimately affirming of life, then his view would be polar opposite to the Buddhist end goal of escaping rebirth.
Buddhism is life affirming, see the description of nirvana: "Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant all around". Realizing nirvana is possible and it is life affirming it just cannot be adequately put into words. Buddhism just tells us to look into suffering and how we create it if we want to find happiness. It's not saying life is only suffering and we should hide. We should go through it to experience the Refuge, Harbour, Home, Safety, Freedom. Samsara is nirvana.
I always found that Nietszche’s idea of the evolution of a person as a camel, lion and then baby is very similar to that of taoism or Zen Buddhism. In western thought, the camel shows the burden of traditions and expectations. The lion is the awareness of such falsities and the child is the unburdened person, free of attachment who can experience the world for what it is. I find that nietzches idea of the will to power is very similar to eastern philosophies idea of the natural self. Many of nietzches idea invoke similar feelings to that of eastern religions/philosophies. Often times the two become separated due to definitions or terms which is no surprise.
Nihilism being one of the four philosophical denials would be exactly antithetical to Dharma teachings: Both monism and dualism are extremist philosophies as are nihilism and eternalism... as you can tell they are in-themselves dualities...
Nietzsche was quite clear on why he concluded Buddhism was a nihilistic "hygiene" as he called it. His brief affair with Schopenhauer was a most amusing period of his life.
“Main thought! The individual himself is a fallacy. Everything which happens in us is in itself something else which we do not know. ‘The individual’ is merely a sum of conscious feelings and judgments and misconceptions, a belief, a piece of the true life system or many pieces thought together and spun together, a ‘unity’, that doesn’t hold together. We are buds on a single tree-what do we know about what can become of us from the interests of the tree! But we have a consciousness as though we would and should be everything, a phantasy of ‘I’ and all ‘not I.’ Stop feeling oneself as this phantastic ego! Learn gradually to discard the supposed individual! Discover the fallacies of the ego! Recognize egoism as fallacy! The opposite is not to be understood as altruism! This would be love of other supposed individuals! No! Get beyond ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’! Experience cosmically!”
The West once had a "Buddha" named Pythagoras whom belief was extremely close to Buddhism/Hinduism. It was alleged that he and his religion were influenced from India. However, the rise of radical Christianity destroyed all remnants of his religion. If we could truly obtain his writings on religious philosophy, we will discover wonder. Christianity is cancer upon humanity.
Nietzsche: Will to Power Siddhartha: Power to Will Without power, there is no cause for will. Will is the craving for (more) power. Projected on the world as with Nietzsche or over the mind as with the Buddha. Gautama and Nietzsche is a bit like the Yin and Yang of Taoism ☯️
No it’s not Taoism, Buddhism is non duality. There is no will. There is no you. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Read the heart sutra before you talk about Buddhism.
Most human beings are psychologically similar, but different enough that we resemble distinct individuals. Differences often matter more than similarities Also I think these similarities are over stated, and there is a vital difference here, Nietzsche ultimately advocates for fierce engagement with life and independent thought. Buddhist thought advocates for outward passivity, and unflinching devotion to the extirpation of internal suffering. It is tyranny without tyrants.
The first conclusión from this remarlable exposition Is that Nietzsche had a rather poor information on both Buddha and Buddhism,. A 2nd guess Is that Nietzsche was a radical nihilist who accused essentially everyone else of nihilism, notoriously including his original teachers like Wagner and of course Schopenhauer.
He had a problem with altruism, not compassion. You can be compassionate without being self-denying, or life-denying. In fact, the _Egoist_ (not the _egoTist)_ is better equipped for compassion than anyone. He has the most spirit to inspire others, the most confidence (not overconfidence or arrogance), the most independence, the most morale and will (and you'll notice that 'morale' is cognate with moral, 'Kindness' is cognate with 'kindred', the Greek 'Ethnos' is cognate with 'Ethos' etc. But I digress). The hard truth is that everything in life is reciprocal. You can only _potentially_ get out of life what you put into it, though not necessarily. There are exceptions to this rule (for example, those born into money), but they are few and far between and still lead to an unhappy, unfulfilled life. I entreat you to ask yourself: What are those social, political or philosophical principles which unite the individual with the collective in a positive, edifying way, and what are those social, political or philosophical principles which unite the individual with the collective in a negative, decadent, depressing way? If you truly want to "spiral up", as it were, in the cycle of reincarnation, then I propose that everyone starts learning and applying the former principles. And _that_ is primarily a characteristically "Apollonian" goal.
What I don’t like about this video is that it uses the book “will to power” as it source, you should already know that Nietzsche didn’t publish this. Therefore, we have to use this with caution. We can even ignore it, why do we need to use the “unpublished book” as a source when Nietzsche talked about Buddhism in his works Antichrist, Genealogy of Morals, Beyond good and evil??? Why not get information in these books? Lastly, Buddhism is still a nihilistic “religion” and he explained this in his book the antichrist. nietzsche just said that even though buddhism is nihilistic, it’s still better than Christianity because Buddhism sees suffering for what it is not interpret the suffering as a sin like christianity did
Except for a rare few individuals who experience chronic pain on a daily, non-stop daily basis, the Bhuddist--and to some extent Christian--asseration that life is about suffering, is easily refuted by the facts which show that for the vast majority of people, pain is a predominately rare experience and that, to the greatest extent, life is either neutral or is essentially good. Just as least 99.99 percent of the cars on a two way street pass either other without experiencing head-on collisions, so almost all of us, from the time we are born until we approach dotage, live most of our days without any physical pain or infirmity. (As an aside, if even a simple majority of cars ran into each other, two way streets would be impassable one hundred percent of the time just as human society would be an untenable concept if most of us were unable to function phsically due to a debilitating level of pain and suffering.) Further, it can be shown at this late date in history, that much, if not all of our mental suffering is self-inflicted and stems from our desire to be something we are not; rich, famous, pretty, etc. So it seems the real issue is that people, in a ego-driven attempt at self-aggrandization, fixate on the bad to the exclusion of all that is neutral or good and thus become prey for those philosophies which promise them some sort of escape from this world, which may, in fact, turn out to be as close to heaven as any of us will ever get.
It would be an easily refuted assertion if Buddhism actually claimed what you said. It does not. Dukkha does not translate to suffering as neatly as would be necessary for your analysis. 'Unsatisfactoriness' has been offered as the closest translation, and it's the translation most used by Western teachers who have learned under the great lineages abroad, as well as Buddhist scholars. Sure, you are not in constant pain, but does the pleasure of eating food last? Does the pleasure of buying a new car last? When you experience pain, do you not wish for an end to that pain and dwell in dissatisfaction until the pain subsides? The more comprehensive understanding of dukkha includes all of these scenarios and much more. The experience of pain and suffering in a more severe and obvious sense is only a small part of what the Four Noble Truths are describing. Unless you are inhuman or you have cultivated the Buddhist ideal, (something that even precious few Buddhists have managed, if at all), you are not permanently satisfied after having eaten or after having purchased a desired possession. You will ever desire more. You will be unsatisfied. There is an evolutionary basis for unsatisfactoriness in human nature, and it is very much the opposite of 'easily refuted'. There exist many different methodologies under the umbrella of Buddhism (it is a matter of ignorance that we in the West treat Buddhism in totality as some unified whole that always agrees with itself philosophically), many of which only the unlearned would dare call 'life-denying'. For many of these methodologies, the practice is not about turning away from suffering, it is very much about having an acute and trained awareness of the suffering and the conditions from which it arises. Buddhist practice would ask of the adherent to engage with suffering more directly than the average person ever would naturally. In many mindfulness meditation practices, the practitioner is encouraged to sit with any discomfort they may be experiencing, including aches and pains, the desire to move, to scratch an itch. The practitioner is asked not to ignore these sensations and turn away from them, but to take them as objects of meditation, or at the very least acknowledge and accept them before returning to the breath or some other meditation object. Repression and aversion are the opposite of the practice. The majority of Buddhist methodologies (there may be exceptions) seek the alleviation of suffering by penetrating it, not by avoiding it. Zen or Dzogchen teachings, for example, are about recognition of your Buddha-nature that is already present, and reject there even being a difference between Samsara and Nirvana fundamentally. Even in regular old vipassana, where Nirvana tends to be presented as a far off goal, it is through mindfulness of pain, suffering, and dissatisfaction that the practitioner would ultimately obtain liberating insight. It's difficult to see how, in practice, Buddhist prescriptions involve some turning away from life. The most realistic grounds for this accusation might be asceticism and monasticism. It might very much look like a turning away when a monk chooses to live in a monastery away from 'worldly troubles'. But this is not really an escape from life, it is merely an escape from larger human society. Life follows the monk to the monastery, dukkha is still very much present in the temples. The purpose of the seclusion can be thought of as clearing out all that is very much unnecessary so that is does not present as a distraction from one's practice. That said, you'd be hard-pressed to find a person on the street who would think that giving up all possessions outside of robes and a bowl for alms is somehow a good way to escape and turn away from suffering. On the contrary, it is for fear of magnified suffering and dissatisfaction that many of us would not even entertain the idea, It's all dukkha regardless, the renunciate path simply has less distractions for its stated goal. "Further, it can be shown at this late date in history, that much, if not all of our mental suffering is self-inflicted and stems from our desire to be something we are not; rich, famous, pretty, etc. So it seems the real issue is that people, in a ego-driven attempt at self-aggrandization, fixate on the bad to the exclusion of all that is neutral or good" Buddhism, on the whole, would agree. I hope this helps. Misconceptions of Buddhism abound, and not everyone can be expected to take the time to read the Suttas and take up a practice in order to discover just how much the popular image of Buddhism misses the mark. This "life is suffering" notion is the result of a perpetuated bad translation, of language barriers on top of fundamentally different philosophical bases between the West and East. Disclaimer: I only regularly consume Buddhist material and engage in many of the prescribed practices from different traditions, and consider the philosophies for fun in my considerable free time. I am not an academic scholar of Buddhism, even though I love reading what such scholars have to say. As such, I do not claim to be an authority on the matter and welcome someone even more established than myself to come along and fill in gaps, add nuance, and even clear up possible misunderstandings. Given that many lay Buddhists (as is true of most religious adherents) don't even have a deep understanding of their own doctrines, I'm certainly not going to claim perfect understanding. There's more material across all the traditions than one human could ever hope to fully explore in a natural lifespan.
@@matthewjonas8952damn, it’s nice to see someone who knows their stuff Tired of the constant claims of buddhism being “life denying” or accusing it of “running away from suffering” especially with the infamous “lol you desire to stop desire? CHECKMATE”
@@kigurumii being a Buddhist monk literally sucks so no idea how anybody could conclude they are actually running away from life's woes, lol you won't ever have a family, will forever be isolated from the rest of your peers and you'll be doing mundane chores for the rest of your life
Okay but wasn’t Buddha still escaping suffering through negating-the-will and asceticism (non-action)? Just because Buddhists describe this process with a positive connotation leading to tranquility, which he doesn’t deny, doesn’t mean in Nietzsche’s view this isn’t pessimistic. Maybe I’m still misunderstanding but wouldn’t Nietzsche say yes to life whereas Buddha would recluse away from it, with the ultimate goal to the destruction of the self?
You totally missed Nietzsche point he reject Buddhism because it don't own what really life is , suffering, cruelty etc but Buddhism make life what Christians made
The point of the video as I understood it, was to point out that exactly the opposite of your assertion is, in fact, the truth. To state more simply, that is exactly what Buddhism does, and Nietzsche misunderstood that.
@@xxnarnarnarxx ya by looking them we can see and understand what Nietzsche meant, if make yourself separate from society or to himself is not opposite of life affirming then what is? According to Nietzsche as i understand life affirmation is to accept the life as it is not make life a system or make an organization but to accept its cruel meaningless harsh,but when you indulge yourself in some form of organized company like Buddhism in order to give life made up meaning that's in reality life denying.
@@hba2561 if you replace Nietzsche with Buddha in your second paragraph, you're getting close to what the teachings of the Buddha are. Real quick, two things. A. 4 noble truths of Buddhism 1. Life is harsh, meaningless and cruel and filled with dissatisfaction 2. The dissatisfaction comes from yearning for things 3. You don't have to yearn 4. Theres a way to stop yearning, and it can be described Secondly, some of the Buddha's earliest teachings were to renounce aspects of life which obscure the fact that it is harsh, meaningless and cruel. I don't want to be rude at all, but it seems like you don't know some rudimentary ideas about Buddhism and that you seem to think it is the exact opposite of what it actually is.
@@xxnarnarnarxx ok I think we are agreed on teachings about life Look like both are same. So why Nietzsche against it? Yes i don't know much about Buddhism. I am wondering if Buddha will agree on statement that "there are no facts only interpretations" That he will say people to go look at world try to understand it look what it is giving you. Etc as i understand he will not That's problem of Nietzsche with Buddhism.
@@hba2561 I'll try my best to explain this clearly, but please tell me if I've been unclear. The dharma, or the way one lives by the philosophical precepts of "the Buddha", describes the way in which much of what we find in the world is illusory. This is referring to the stories we have been told and tell ourselves about the world and our place in it. These illusions, rather than truths, are understood to be the nature of most of our perceived reality, which is to say that we are not aware of the actual reality much of the time. Put differently, we live confined by the stories and interpretations made by ourselves and others. To understand things without illusion is to search for it yourself. Dharma doesn't seek to set out truths and what is, but rather a way to navigate the illusions and discover your own non-illusory views, through introspection, deep consideration and research.
There is no misunderstanding there. Just look at both the Samsara and Eternal Return. The Buddhist says no to the Samsara, N. says yes. That's why he calls the Buddhist nihilist, it's the opposite of him. They do share the basic materialism and lack of metaphysics, although Buddhists still have all the ascetic and moral aspects N. also thought as nihilistic. They were still looking for values that denied life, the ascetic values, plus the ultimate one, Nirvana. Just because Buddhism does not consider itself nihilistic does not mean he didn't. Christianity does not consider itself nihilistic either, but would consider Buddhism nihilistic. Basically everybody denies something at some point, it's impossible to do without. Most people would also consider N. nihilistic. 😂
Buddhism can't be understood intellectually. It can only be understood experientially. Concepts, as used in this video, only take us further from the truth of what the Buddha taught.
I don’t really see how this legitimately discredits Nietzsche’s take on Buddhism. Attempting to live a life devoid of attachment out a fear of suffering is life denying in his eyes. Buddhists do not only deny life they also essentially wait to become nothing, die, or in other words “depart from a life of suffering.” Buddhism is a nihilism in a real sense. Because to deny life is to be a nihilist and suffering is a part of life meant to be conquered and mastered not let go of.
Research into the middle way that takes suffering into it's proper place. Research the difference between the Bodhisattva and the Mahasattva as end goals of reaching Nirvana.
life is devoid of attachment because theres nothing to hold onto.. because all aggregates are empty. life is created by creative illusion a.k.a maya. you clearly know nothing about buddhism and your talking a lot of rubbish.
Buddha could as well have said that life is Sukkha as whether it is one or the other is purely a matter of reception. Buddhism is only one half of what hinduism is, not wrong as such but incomplete. Buddha himself seems to have been inspired by an uncontrollable rage against Brahminism Western philosophy meanwhile is fairly trivial set beside the internal disputes of Indian thought.
Extremely interesting! Found this while researching on Nietzsche and Eastern Philosophy. Great video, thank you!
I couldn't answer the final question to your video, because I'm not well-read on Nietzsche. But I think it's good to address the context of Buddhism in the sense of how it's practiced, because that might give a different perspective on philosophies in general; they're attempts at solving our problems, but it seems that they rely so much on idiosyncratic arguments rather than pragmatics.
You can see this in the way "anatta" and "dukkha" are treated in the suttas. Firstly, the three "characteristics" aren't "characteristics" or even "concepts" - that is, the Buddha didn't frame them that way. He used them as teaching tools; they're treated as perceptions which the Buddha instructed his disciples to attend to so as to bring about dispassion and thus liberation. That is, they are a tool used for a purpose. We attend to the perception of anatta to break down the illusion of self, not to merely posit a view that it doesn't exist or it "is merely" the khandhas; what the Buddha called the "I-making" is something we do regardless of our philosophical viewpoints, and saying that one "is" merely the khandhas is not necessarily headed in the right direction. The task is to observe the tendency and abandon it, not just to reframe it; one doesn't experience the sense of self and say "I'm just the khandhas", one looks at the sense of self, sees how it's constructed, and actually lets go of it - if one is able to do so; in other words, one sees the sense of self in terms of how it arises in the khandhas (as a feeling, a perception, an action) and takes it apart by constructing another feeling, perception, and action (anatta). On this note it's worth noting the impact our self-esteem might have on this: having a negative self-image may lead us to want to *destroy* the sense of self, which actually causes more suffering under the pretense that "I'll only be happy once my self is destroyed", and that's nihilistic not to mention still rooted in "self". Conversely, having a *healthy* self-image (which is not corrupted by narcissistic tendencies) may make it easier to let go of "self" because we know that, although it's pleasant, it's empty (virtue is partly a matter of cultivating a healthy sense of self, so throwing any thought of self out the window might not be wise).
On that note, dukkha isn't necessarily treated just as a *characteristic* of existence which we "return to" over and over until we abandon desire. Dukkha can be treated as a perception in the sense of perceiving the unsatisfactori-*ness* of things so as to, again, inspire a sense of dispassion towards the objects of our desires. But dukkha in the context of the four noble truths is also looking at the experience of ("internal") dukkha itself, which is caused solely by our wrong actions which in turn are caused by wrong understanding - "clinging" itself is a kind of action of the mind, which we must stop doing in order to realize nirvana. This kind of clinging is abandoned by insight, not in the sense of intellectual understanding, but a clear and sharp understanding strong enough to make us stop picking up our many burdens
Thus we have trainings, such as "loving-kindness" - we don't abandon "revenge" merely for the sake of adopting a moral standpoint, we abandon revenge to abandon our anger and our delusion that anger will help us with our problems. Further, we replace it with loving-kindness to brighten the mind and provide the foundation necessary to free oneself from dukkha amidst that which is marked by dukkha. In other words, life can be painful, and loving-kindness can counteract the tendency to try to correct that painfulness by anger rooted in craving and delusion. Therefore loving-kindness is not just a standpoint of non-violence, but a point of training and cultivation towards nirvana. Through loving-kindness, the "self" is understood and cultivated in a way until it's totally abandoned.
The point here is that, unlike a lot of philosophers we're familiar with, the Buddha taught to train a large group of people, and his teachings are tools meant to be applied beyond the scope of intellectual study or argument; understanding doesn't merely come from study. It seems that this approach in itself - that understanding and liberation comes from training, which itself involves a cultivation of virtue - is enough to take Buddhism out of the realm of nihilism.
I explain complete enlightenment in short video if you're curious
@@scottkraft1062 For who ?
@@howardjamespatterson4119 anyone
You explain so well. Have you made a video on this write-up?
Zen is especially Nietzschean. They really take the "no idols, no dogma" stance even further than other Buddhist schools of thought. I believe an old Zen master once said, "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him." Obviously he didn't mean that literally, but just the idea that you should not get caught up in the mindlessly complacent follower mentality that people often fall into with organized religion. Zen stresses raw firsthand experience, direct engagement of the individual with reality, dispensing with the abstract concepts and dogmas laid down by gurus or priests.
They also put a lot of emphasis on the limits of rationality, as reflected in their often puzzling and nonsensical-seeming Zen koans. Nietzsche echoes this sensibility in Thus Spake Zarathustra (and elsewhere I'm sure) wherein he says that life is divinely, joyously, playfully irrational.
You might like Andre vander Braak 's Nietzsche and Zen, if you don't already know it.
@@yabyum108
Ah, nice, I'll definitely be checking that out. Thanks for the rec!
Great video super interesting and very well made! Great job dude !
This was an insightful watch. Keep up the good work.
Great video. I find this topic quite fascinating. I think it's worth also considering the similarity between Nietzsche's amor fati and the equanimity described by Shakyamuni Buddha as "the middle path."
Just found your channel. Absolutely amazing, look forward to watching more videos. Please do more on Heidegger, Nietzsche, pre-socratics and Daoism!
A rare video on youtube: one tackling a subject with balance and a decent, thorough understanding.
Bravo!
Dude this video is so good, thankyou ❤
Well done, truly, well done.
Well done! Having practiced Buddhism and now studying western philosophy, I’m finding their understanding of Buddhism to be very surface level, academic, and non-experiential. Sure Schopenhauer was a nihilist, perhaps the first doomer, and yes from many of my reading of Nietzsche I’ve seen some Buddhist ideas. But, frankly his understanding of Buddhism seems juvenile, but I’ll admit that I find his writing painful to read. Interesting to think about. Thanks!
Absolutely brilliant.
I’m currently reading Der Steppenwolf by Herman Hesse and it’s a cathartic to see his views of self through the works of Schopenhauer, Nietzche, and Eastern Philosophy (which he studied in-depth and wrote books on if I recall correctly) from I assume he drew inspiration.
It’s always fun to connect the dots.
Thanks for this well done synthesis. I was just referencing one of my favorite books--the one by Antoine Panaioti--and thought I would do a UA-cam search for anything with Panaioiti's name. That's how I stumbled upon your video.
Excellent content as always! You, Then&Now, and Aldous Huxley are some of the best philosophy channels on this website now.
You must checkout jiddu krishnamurthi
Great work
often overlooked but the Buddha came from a warrior cast and many of his analogies are about heroically overcoming the kleshas like the enemy on the battlefield.
the word used to describe kshatriya caste ksha tra and yaa didnt exist during buddha neither did caste ,dont be fooled by bramhanism
@@arnavsarkar3954The Buddhist gospels say otheerwise
@@arnavsarkar3954 caste didn't exist but khstriya and and other varnas are mentioned in tripitaka which is oldest buddhist text. These terms were also mentioned vedas and upanishads that predates tripitaka.
Vaishya and khstriya were mentioned in ashoka edicts
@@arnavsarkar3954Kshatriya/Khattiya/Khatriya/Rajputto are the same thing used to denote the Nobles warrior/ruler class. Also no one consider dravividan low life ambedkarites as Buddhist anywhere outside your dalitverse.
The "Buddhism" Nietzsche (via Schopenhauer) was describing was not Siddhartha Gautama's "be your own light" Buddhism Philosophy, but the disciples evolved deification of Buddha and Buddhism, as well as Buddhism conjoined with other pre-established or already held far eastern (Chinese/Japanese) religious convictions. Such as adding their ideas of god/gods, heaven and hells, etc. with Siddhartha Gautama Buddhism. In another words... Buddha taught an earthly life philosophy to find a way to deal with (varying degrees of) "suffering" from ones own personal strength and "the middle way" to not suppress, but calm emotions. ("Tune your sitar strings not too tight or too loose, but the middle way." etc.) Buddha taught a philosophy, or was an earthly, self-help-type guru, not a priest or heavenly prophet of religion.
However, the acolytes, disciples, and later teachers increasingly deified the Buddha, (a 500 year precursor, Jesus-like figure) to a higher and higher status, claiming miracles, the acquisition of relics, temples of worship, supplication pilgrimages, etc. and transforming/formalizing a philosophy into a religion, completely missing Buddha's point of "you don't need to torture yourself, nor look to the heavens for earthly peace, I'm not a god, go forth and be your own light."
So (IMO) Siddhartha Gautama would (passively) argue against Nietzsche's 19th century pigeonholing of (*500 bce) Buddhism differently than his later teachers would, but both would disagree on different grounds.
Great video
Thank you for this informative video. I agree with you on several points, however this video was most valuable in the points where I disagreed with it, since it made me review and recheck my understanding of Buddhism, Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. In my opinion, there are several inaccuracies and misunderstandings that occur and they occur by no fault of your own, but because the sources you have used present a rather distorted view.
Both Buddhism and Schopenhauer place an emphasis on suffering, but both also emphasize the origin of this suffering as attachment (Schopenhauer more often calls it a „craving”), which does lead to dissatisfaction.
Here Schopenhauer was presented like he has absolutely no positive philosophy, which is not true. His ethics of compassion are very similar to Buddhist ethics, and Schopenhauer’s philosophy cannot be reduced to a mere commentary upon the first noble truth. What his ethics subscribe to has essential parallels with the eightfold path. Both ultimately accentuate compassion, but this is a type of compassion which is entirely antithetical to Nietzsche. Ethical teachings of this type are by definition life-defying in Nietzsche’s terms, since they lead to a “spiritual weakening”. In contrast, both Schopenhauer and the Buddha would see Nietzsche’s ethical observations as a terrific inversion of morality with very dangerous consequences. In connection with this, Elman’s claim that “Schopenhauer is a thorough-going nihilist” is entirely wrong since Schopenhauer was very much concerned with finding a basis for morality, and half of his writings are dedicated to the formation of a dependable form of ethics.
It is also not correct to say that Schopenhauer, in contrast to Buddhism, calls for a “destruction” of the self. He believed in the Kantian notion of a Transcendental Ego, and in key passages from Parerga and Paralipomena, he suggests that this Ego remains and transcends into nothingness. But the notions of the I, both in Schopenhauer and Buddhism (and also in Nietzsche) are very complex so I wont get into this here. What I will say is that Schopenhauer and Buddhism emphasize the illusory nature of reality, and the need to cultivate proper perception in the midst of this illusory reality, which to Nietzsche seems like a life-denying nihilism. Nietzsche celebrates “joyful illusions” and does not seek an escape from pain and suffering (at least in his philosophy). He cannot separate Schopenhauer’s teachings from the Buddha’s teachings, because both begin from an identical empirical observation of existence. What Nietzsche criticizes is their critique of this empirical observation and their attempt to evade it.
Consequently, Nietzsche would not and could not agree with Schopenhauer’s advice to silence the will’s cravings, and with the Buddha’s urge to dis-attachment. Even on an aesthetic level, Nietzsche criticizes this anti-attachment behavior, when he says that someone should be enflamed by passion, rather than be distanced from it, in a vein similar to Stendhal (see Genealogy of Morality, III, 6).
For Nietzsche to be an antipode of the Buddha, he’d need to be “unawakened”, as a commentator rightfully observed. And Nietzsche would agree. He does not seek to “awaken” from this reality and
disparage its illusions. Infact, what he ascribes to is a Dionysian intoxication with the world as it is. One of the "similarities" that was emphasized in this video is actually a huge point of tension
between a nietzschean and a buddhist paradigm. The buddhists characterize samsara as a cycle that needs to be overcome and as something that has to be escaped. Hence, this is the life-denying
aspect that Nietzsche saw in buddhism. On the contrary, the eternal return is something that one must always wish to return to. An affirmation that says "Yes!" to each and every aspect of one'ss life,
repeating continuously. This type of amor fati is devilishly antagonistic to the buddhist understanding. It almost sounds like the ultimate anti-vision that Mara could reveal to the Buddha,
and that the Buddha would shudderingly reject (in contrast, Nietzsche would react very aggressively specifically to the notion of Parinirvana).
On the concept of Śūnyatā: Schopenhauer’s understanding of nothingness and emptiness is very complicated, and, similar to Buddhism, it’s rather incorrect to interpret it simply as “literal nothingness”. Schopenhauer is clear that the nothingness and emptiness that the enlightened perceive is beyond description (and beyond the principle of sufficient reason) and that it cannot be neatly affixed in the categories of being (such as substance/quality/quantity and etc.).
Buddhists often hide behind the notion that “westerners misunderstand Buddhism and they translate it’s concepts into nihilism” (and this really is true in some cases, Hegel being one famous example). However, the Buddhist path has been interpreted as nihilistic even in the east. Ever since their first contact, the adherents of Confucianism have tried to refute Buddhism times
and times again because they interpreted the nihilistic Buddhist tendencies as detrimental to society. And this is but one example. Several more debates exist between Hinduism, Jainism and Sikhism against Buddhism. Furthermore, the very schools of Buddhism themselves place the label “nihilism” upon eachother.
In my opinion, the label “nihilism” is philosophically useless since people use it as a kind of ad hominem which (ironically) contains no substantial critique that would foster productive discussion. Nietzsche, Jacobi and Shestov are one of the few philosophers that actually know what they mean when they use the term.
Back on topic, where Schopenhauer truly misunderstands Buddhism is when he comments upon asceticism. When it comes to asceticism (where Schopenhauer’s understanding is much closer to that of Jainism), Buddhism’s middle path is substantially different from what the German philosopher has in mind. Also, in some teachings of Buddhism there is a lot less metaphysical speculation than in Schopenhauer’s doctrine. Some points of the Pali canon can actually be read as a critique towards metaphysics and this is a critique that is indeed very similar to the critiques that Kant and later Nietzsche will launch.
Additionally, when it comes to similarities, what Nietzsche likes in Buddhism is exactly what he likes in Schopenhauer: That they’re both apatheisic. Moreover, Nietzsche viewed Buddhism in a manner similar to the way he saw Stoicism. Both are indisputably a nihilistic slave type of morality, however, they are a morality of a still higher type than the more naïve and vengeful mainstream Christian type of morality. In conclusion, Nietzsche and Schopenhauer understood a lot more from the eastern philosophies than modern scholars give them credit for. They knew what they stood for and how these philosophies differ from and/or support their personal philosophical worldviews. When it comes to the advertisement of compassion, Schopenhauer’s analysis of this ethical term and his tracing of it throughout the Christian and eastern teachings is brilliant. Similarly, Nietzsche’s existential awareness was severely acute and he was well informed about how this awareness reverberated in other philosophical and religious ideas throughout the world.
I would once again like to thank you for the video, since it made me want to look further into these thinkers and form a clear understanding about the topics in which they agreed, and in those in which they disagreed.
EDIT: Fixed typos and added the example of Parinirvana.
Thank you for this write up and critique! I really enjoyed it. In my research for this video I don't remember coming across this position so I'm glad you raised it here. You mentioned that the issue is rooted in the sources and that modern scholars don't give Nietzsche and Schopenhauer enough credit for their understandings of Eastern philosophy. Are you familiar with any that do and do so well? If so, I'd enjoy reading it and could offer it in the description as a source critical of the information presented here. If not, no worries and thanks again for your thoughtful comment.
For Schopenhauer, as an initial step towards a more comprehensive research I can suggest the chapter "Nothingness, Negativity, and Buddhism in Schopenhauer" by Eric Nelson and the book "Schopenhauer's Compass" by Urs App (there App does a good job at determining Schopenhauer's similarities and differences with key eastern concepts). In "Infinite Resignation" Eugene Thacker establishes a pessimistic interpretation of Buddhism that he defends rather convincingly (but the arguments in the book are scattered and idiosyncratic).
As for Nietzsche scholarship, it is a mess. It has an ambivalent quality because scholars either want to defend the eastern religions from Nietzsche's critique by saying that he did not understand them (this is not just an east/west thing, christian apologists use this "argument" aswell), or some scholars want to present Nietzsche in a more tame and positive light, claiming that his philosophy is synergistic and compatible with a certain eastern teaching (these scholars will usually claim that Nietzsche was not aware of this similarity because... again, he did not understand X teaching properly). You've already read the most common sources, but others I can recommend at the top of my head are Freny Mistry's "Nietzsche and Buddhism", Graham Parkes's anthology "Nietzsche and Asian Thought" and the great Thomas Brobjer's "Nietzsche's Reading About Eastern Philosophy".
But most importantly, I recommend reading Schopenhauer and Nietzsche firsthand. They are eminently readable, brilliant authors that present their opinions on matters in raw form and make the reader intimately aware with what they agree with and what they find detestable. It is tempting to read secondary literature on arcane philosophers and their complicated arguments, but with these two, one can never go wrong by choosing to spend time on one of their primary texts.
EDIT: I was reminded about two sources I originally forgot to mention. Firstly, regarding Nietzsche, I found the essay "Beyond good and evil? A Buddhist critique of Nietzsche" by David Loy to be very interesting. Secondly, there is a dissertation by Benjamin Dillon Schluter titled "Siddhartha's Smile: Schopenhauer, Hesse, Nietzsche" which explores the converging and diverging points of the three philosophies through the literary prism of Herman Hesse. The text is useful and thought-provoking as regards the current topic, since in it one can clearly see the points in which specific Buddhist teachings connect with Schopenhauer or Nietzsche, and also where the points of tensions are (this is explored through contrast).
- Additionally, a short and easy to read text by Ryan Smith examines Nietzsche's relationship to Buddhism in a critical manner. Smith's text comes as a review to "Nietzsche and Buddhist Philosophy", a book by Antoine Panaioti which you have cited (Panaioti's scholarly opinion being similar to that of Benjamin Elman and Freny Mistry).
I had similar thoughts to your comment. I'm by no means an expert, I appreciate the similarities presented in the video, but also agree that there are underlying differences among those similar beliefs
How did Hegel misunderstand Buddhism though?
This comment is a good addition to the video
Please make a video on hume and buddhism!
Amazing, ty
Amazing good job
good video. thank you.
Earned a sub.
amazing video thank you🫶🏻🫶🏻
Thanks 😊
Wonderful video! Bravo! I am a Buddhist, and I found your video to be eloquent in the description of my religion.
Interestingly, i investigated this VERY matter, back in University. "Nietzsche, Non-Duality, & the Nature of our Neurosis." There's QUITE a story to the whole thing :)
Excellent! Do you think there are clashing points between Nietzche and Buddhism that are not based on misunderstanding?
Nice
Why so little likes ? Video is great
I love listening to this carefully but this is not always true about suffering life or happiness. Happiness can and is often felt on a continuum and it never goes away.
namo buddhay,the real message of buddha has been tattered and blemished beyond recognition , your video made me weep as it rid me of my ignorance
The most important concept I ever learned when studying Nietzsche is this. You see, when Socrates, Aristotle, Kant, and most religions built a two-dimensional philosophy, Nietzsche on the other hand created a three-dimensional philosophy or religion. Aristotle and the rest created a list of principles or ideas that could easily be put into a chart or a list of principles. When reading Nietzsche on the other hand, you have to imagine a pool of stars on the ground. From this pool of stars rises and forms a humanoid. This humanoid of stars continues to form until it can run a few steps and then shatters into the puddle of stars again. This happens over and over again for an eternity. You see Nietzsche creates these stars by creating inverted and alternate concepts than the ones we believe in. He reaffirms healthy ideas and then creates their opposites. These create the Rorschach test you personally peer into eventually.
Ok I don't think I understand this. Religions and philosophies exist as a means of making sense of the chaos of life. What you're saying is Nietzsche created a new philosophy that wasn't about making sense out of life, but instead reflected the chaos?
nice
In Osho some ideas of Nietzsche seems to merge with ideas from Buddhism, as in Zorba de Buddha.
The big question in my mind is would Nietzsche view Buddhism as life affirming? Buddhism ultimately seeks to escape the samsaric cycle of rebirth, while Nietzsche's thought experiment of amor fati is characterized by an affirmative yes to all of life and to the notion of eternally reoccurring into the same life endlessly. If amor fati is to be the key to understanding what Nietzsche would view as ultimately affirming of life, then his view would be polar opposite to the Buddhist end goal of escaping rebirth.
Nietzsche opposed Buddhism.
@@myhatmygandhi6217 For the reasons I explained above.
@Arkeves that is what Buddhism is about. Paranirvana is the ultimate goal.
Buddhism is life affirming, see the description of nirvana: "Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant all around". Realizing nirvana is possible and it is life affirming it just cannot be adequately put into words. Buddhism just tells us to look into suffering and how we create it if we want to find happiness. It's not saying life is only suffering and we should hide. We should go through it to experience the Refuge, Harbour, Home, Safety, Freedom. Samsara is nirvana.
@@user26912 Lol
I always found that Nietszche’s idea of the evolution of a person as a camel, lion and then baby is very similar to that of taoism or Zen Buddhism. In western thought, the camel shows the burden of traditions and expectations. The lion is the awareness of such falsities and the child is the unburdened person, free of attachment who can experience the world for what it is. I find that nietzches idea of the will to power is very similar to eastern philosophies idea of the natural self. Many of nietzches idea invoke similar feelings to that of eastern religions/philosophies. Often times the two become separated due to definitions or terms which is no surprise.
Buddha means awakened one. Antipode to that is unawake.
No. The antipode of the Buddha Siddharta Gaumama would be an awakened fish person somewhere between Chile and the Easter Island.
What a surface level conclusion
Nihilism being one of the four philosophical denials would be exactly antithetical to Dharma teachings:
Both monism and dualism are extremist philosophies as are nihilism and eternalism... as you can tell they are in-themselves dualities...
When defining dukkha and anatta you forgot anicca . it is a tripleTerm . It should be seen together
Nietzsche was quite clear on why he concluded Buddhism was a nihilistic "hygiene" as he called it. His brief affair with Schopenhauer was a most amusing period of his life.
It’s outrageous that you only have 1k followers.
I associate the middle way with Jungian Individuation . Striking balance. ... but with a hammer?
Ian, the profile pic, please.
"We are Doomed"
Private Fraser, Dads Army
Prajna Paramita may be better pronounced as Pro-gya Paramita.
“Main thought! The individual himself is a fallacy. Everything which happens in us is in itself something else which we do not know. ‘The individual’ is merely a sum of conscious feelings and judgments and misconceptions, a belief, a piece of the true life system or many pieces thought together and spun together, a ‘unity’, that doesn’t hold together. We are buds on a single tree-what do we know about what can become of us from the interests of the tree! But we have a consciousness as though we would and should be everything, a phantasy of ‘I’ and all ‘not I.’ Stop feeling oneself as this phantastic ego! Learn gradually to discard the supposed individual! Discover the fallacies of the ego! Recognize egoism as fallacy! The opposite is not to be understood as altruism! This would be love of other supposed individuals! No! Get beyond ‘myself’ and ‘yourself’! Experience cosmically!”
A tiny flaw. ‘Timely’ doe not mean concise. Therefore , ‘to keep this talk timely’ makes no sense in.this context.
Solid catch. Thanks for letting me know!
Thnxs brodhisattva!
The West once had a "Buddha" named Pythagoras whom belief was extremely close to Buddhism/Hinduism. It was alleged that he and his religion were influenced from India. However, the rise of radical Christianity destroyed all remnants of his religion.
If we could truly obtain his writings on religious philosophy, we will discover wonder. Christianity is cancer upon humanity.
🕉
Nietzsche: Will to Power
Siddhartha: Power to Will
Without power, there is no cause for will. Will is the craving for (more) power. Projected on the world as with Nietzsche or over the mind as with the Buddha.
Gautama and Nietzsche is a bit like the Yin and Yang of Taoism ☯️
Can you elaborate a little more on what power to will means?
No it’s not Taoism, Buddhism is non duality. There is no will. There is no you. Emptiness is form, form is emptiness. Read the heart sutra before you talk about Buddhism.
Most human beings are psychologically similar, but different enough that we resemble distinct individuals. Differences often matter more than similarities
Also I think these similarities are over stated, and there is a vital difference here, Nietzsche ultimately advocates for fierce engagement with life and independent thought. Buddhist thought advocates for outward passivity, and unflinching devotion to the extirpation of internal suffering. It is tyranny without tyrants.
if you think that then you should read about Dzogchen
The first conclusión from this remarlable exposition Is that Nietzsche had a rather poor information on both Buddha and Buddhism,.
A 2nd guess Is that Nietzsche was a radical nihilist who accused essentially everyone else of nihilism, notoriously including his original teachers like Wagner and of course Schopenhauer.
Buddhism has compassion in it. Nietzsche had a problem with compassion
He had a problem with altruism, not compassion. You can be compassionate without being self-denying, or life-denying. In fact, the _Egoist_ (not the _egoTist)_ is better equipped for compassion than anyone. He has the most spirit to inspire others, the most confidence (not overconfidence or arrogance), the most independence, the most morale and will (and you'll notice that 'morale' is cognate with moral, 'Kindness' is cognate with 'kindred', the Greek 'Ethnos' is cognate with 'Ethos' etc. But I digress). The hard truth is that everything in life is reciprocal. You can only _potentially_ get out of life what you put into it, though not necessarily. There are exceptions to this rule (for example, those born into money), but they are few and far between and still lead to an unhappy, unfulfilled life.
I entreat you to ask yourself: What are those social, political or philosophical principles which unite the individual with the collective in a positive, edifying way, and what are those social, political or philosophical principles which unite the individual with the collective in a negative, decadent, depressing way? If you truly want to "spiral up", as it were, in the cycle of reincarnation, then I propose that everyone starts learning and applying the former principles. And _that_ is primarily a characteristically "Apollonian" goal.
Nirvana: the game of higher concious beings.
Buddha may be Nietzhe's Übermensch then
What I don’t like about this video is that it uses the book “will to power” as it source, you should already know that Nietzsche didn’t publish this. Therefore, we have to use this with caution. We can even ignore it, why do we need to use the “unpublished book” as a source when Nietzsche talked about Buddhism in his works Antichrist, Genealogy of Morals, Beyond good and evil??? Why not get information in these books? Lastly, Buddhism is still a nihilistic “religion” and he explained this in his book the antichrist. nietzsche just said that even though buddhism is nihilistic, it’s still better than Christianity because Buddhism sees suffering for what it is not interpret the suffering as a sin like christianity did
Except for a rare few individuals who experience chronic pain on a daily, non-stop daily basis, the Bhuddist--and to some extent Christian--asseration that life is about suffering, is easily refuted by the facts which show that for the vast majority of people, pain is a predominately rare experience and that, to the greatest extent, life is either neutral or is essentially good.
Just as least 99.99 percent of the cars on a two way street pass either other without experiencing head-on collisions, so almost all of us, from the time we are born until we approach dotage, live most of our days without any physical pain or infirmity.
(As an aside, if even a simple majority of cars ran into each other, two way streets would be impassable one hundred percent of the time just as human society would be an untenable concept if most of us were unable to function phsically due to a debilitating level of pain and suffering.)
Further, it can be shown at this late date in history, that much, if not all of our mental suffering is self-inflicted and stems from our desire to be something we are not; rich, famous, pretty, etc.
So it seems the real issue is that people, in a ego-driven attempt at self-aggrandization, fixate on the bad to the exclusion of all that is neutral or good and thus become prey for those philosophies which promise them some sort of escape from this world, which may, in fact, turn out to be as close to heaven as any of us will ever get.
It would be an easily refuted assertion if Buddhism actually claimed what you said. It does not. Dukkha does not translate to suffering as neatly as would be necessary for your analysis. 'Unsatisfactoriness' has been offered as the closest translation, and it's the translation most used by Western teachers who have learned under the great lineages abroad, as well as Buddhist scholars. Sure, you are not in constant pain, but does the pleasure of eating food last? Does the pleasure of buying a new car last? When you experience pain, do you not wish for an end to that pain and dwell in dissatisfaction until the pain subsides? The more comprehensive understanding of dukkha includes all of these scenarios and much more. The experience of pain and suffering in a more severe and obvious sense is only a small part of what the Four Noble Truths are describing. Unless you are inhuman or you have cultivated the Buddhist ideal, (something that even precious few Buddhists have managed, if at all), you are not permanently satisfied after having eaten or after having purchased a desired possession. You will ever desire more. You will be unsatisfied. There is an evolutionary basis for unsatisfactoriness in human nature, and it is very much the opposite of 'easily refuted'.
There exist many different methodologies under the umbrella of Buddhism (it is a matter of ignorance that we in the West treat Buddhism in totality as some unified whole that always agrees with itself philosophically), many of which only the unlearned would dare call 'life-denying'. For many of these methodologies, the practice is not about turning away from suffering, it is very much about having an acute and trained awareness of the suffering and the conditions from which it arises. Buddhist practice would ask of the adherent to engage with suffering more directly than the average person ever would naturally. In many mindfulness meditation practices, the practitioner is encouraged to sit with any discomfort they may be experiencing, including aches and pains, the desire to move, to scratch an itch. The practitioner is asked not to ignore these sensations and turn away from them, but to take them as objects of meditation, or at the very least acknowledge and accept them before returning to the breath or some other meditation object. Repression and aversion are the opposite of the practice. The majority of Buddhist methodologies (there may be exceptions) seek the alleviation of suffering by penetrating it, not by avoiding it. Zen or Dzogchen teachings, for example, are about recognition of your Buddha-nature that is already present, and reject there even being a difference between Samsara and Nirvana fundamentally. Even in regular old vipassana, where Nirvana tends to be presented as a far off goal, it is through mindfulness of pain, suffering, and dissatisfaction that the practitioner would ultimately obtain liberating insight.
It's difficult to see how, in practice, Buddhist prescriptions involve some turning away from life. The most realistic grounds for this accusation might be asceticism and monasticism. It might very much look like a turning away when a monk chooses to live in a monastery away from 'worldly troubles'. But this is not really an escape from life, it is merely an escape from larger human society. Life follows the monk to the monastery, dukkha is still very much present in the temples. The purpose of the seclusion can be thought of as clearing out all that is very much unnecessary so that is does not present as a distraction from one's practice. That said, you'd be hard-pressed to find a person on the street who would think that giving up all possessions outside of robes and a bowl for alms is somehow a good way to escape and turn away from suffering. On the contrary, it is for fear of magnified suffering and dissatisfaction that many of us would not even entertain the idea, It's all dukkha regardless, the renunciate path simply has less distractions for its stated goal.
"Further, it can be shown at this late date in history, that much, if not all of our mental suffering is self-inflicted and stems from our desire to be something we are not; rich, famous, pretty, etc. So it seems the real issue is that people, in a ego-driven attempt at self-aggrandization, fixate on the bad to the exclusion of all that is neutral or good"
Buddhism, on the whole, would agree.
I hope this helps. Misconceptions of Buddhism abound, and not everyone can be expected to take the time to read the Suttas and take up a practice in order to discover just how much the popular image of Buddhism misses the mark. This "life is suffering" notion is the result of a perpetuated bad translation, of language barriers on top of fundamentally different philosophical bases between the West and East.
Disclaimer: I only regularly consume Buddhist material and engage in many of the prescribed practices from different traditions, and consider the philosophies for fun in my considerable free time. I am not an academic scholar of Buddhism, even though I love reading what such scholars have to say. As such, I do not claim to be an authority on the matter and welcome someone even more established than myself to come along and fill in gaps, add nuance, and even clear up possible misunderstandings. Given that many lay Buddhists (as is true of most religious adherents) don't even have a deep understanding of their own doctrines, I'm certainly not going to claim perfect understanding. There's more material across all the traditions than one human could ever hope to fully explore in a natural lifespan.
@@matthewjonas8952damn, it’s nice to see someone who knows their stuff
Tired of the constant claims of buddhism being “life denying” or accusing it of “running away from suffering” especially with the infamous “lol you desire to stop desire? CHECKMATE”
@@kigurumii being a Buddhist monk literally sucks so no idea how anybody could conclude they are actually running away from life's woes, lol you won't ever have a family, will forever be isolated from the rest of your peers and you'll be doing mundane chores for the rest of your life
Nietzsche wasn't a fan
This slander of Schopenhauer is ridiculous.
Okay but wasn’t Buddha still escaping suffering through negating-the-will and asceticism (non-action)? Just because Buddhists describe this process with a positive connotation leading to tranquility, which he doesn’t deny, doesn’t mean in Nietzsche’s view this isn’t pessimistic. Maybe I’m still misunderstanding but wouldn’t Nietzsche say yes to life whereas Buddha would recluse away from it, with the ultimate goal to the destruction of the self?
German philosophy ( Kant, Hegel, Husserl, New Left) are very irrational. Only Ludwig Buchner was a good thinker.
You totally missed Nietzsche point he reject Buddhism because it don't own what really life is , suffering, cruelty etc but Buddhism make life what Christians made
The point of the video as I understood it, was to point out that exactly the opposite of your assertion is, in fact, the truth. To state more simply, that is exactly what Buddhism does, and Nietzsche misunderstood that.
@@xxnarnarnarxx ya by looking them we can see and understand what Nietzsche meant,
if make yourself separate from society or to himself is not opposite of life affirming then what is?
According to Nietzsche as i understand life affirmation is to accept the life as it is not make life a system or make an organization but to accept its cruel meaningless harsh,but when you indulge yourself in some form of organized company like Buddhism in order to give life made up meaning that's in reality life denying.
@@hba2561 if you replace Nietzsche with Buddha in your second paragraph, you're getting close to what the teachings of the Buddha are.
Real quick, two things.
A. 4 noble truths of Buddhism
1. Life is harsh, meaningless and cruel and filled with dissatisfaction
2. The dissatisfaction comes from yearning for things
3. You don't have to yearn
4. Theres a way to stop yearning, and it can be described
Secondly, some of the Buddha's earliest teachings were to renounce aspects of life which obscure the fact that it is harsh, meaningless and cruel.
I don't want to be rude at all, but it seems like you don't know some rudimentary ideas about Buddhism and that you seem to think it is the exact opposite of what it actually is.
@@xxnarnarnarxx ok
I think we are agreed on teachings about life
Look like both are same. So why Nietzsche against it?
Yes i don't know much about Buddhism.
I am wondering if Buddha will agree on statement that "there are no facts only interpretations"
That he will say people to go look at world try to understand it look what it is giving you. Etc
as i understand he will not
That's problem of Nietzsche with Buddhism.
@@hba2561 I'll try my best to explain this clearly, but please tell me if I've been unclear.
The dharma, or the way one lives by the philosophical precepts of "the Buddha", describes the way in which much of what we find in the world is illusory. This is referring to the stories we have been told and tell ourselves about the world and our place in it. These illusions, rather than truths, are understood to be the nature of most of our perceived reality, which is to say that we are not aware of the actual reality much of the time. Put differently, we live confined by the stories and interpretations made by ourselves and others. To understand things without illusion is to search for it yourself. Dharma doesn't seek to set out truths and what is, but rather a way to navigate the illusions and discover your own non-illusory views, through introspection, deep consideration and research.
There is no misunderstanding there.
Just look at both the Samsara and Eternal Return.
The Buddhist says no to the Samsara, N. says yes.
That's why he calls the Buddhist nihilist, it's the opposite of him.
They do share the basic materialism and lack of metaphysics, although Buddhists still have all the ascetic and moral aspects N. also thought as nihilistic. They were still looking for values that denied life, the ascetic values, plus the ultimate one, Nirvana.
Just because Buddhism does not consider itself nihilistic does not mean he didn't. Christianity does not consider itself nihilistic either, but would consider Buddhism nihilistic. Basically everybody denies something at some point, it's impossible to do without. Most people would also consider N. nihilistic. 😂
Wait but doesn't buddhaism has reincarnation in it
Ashes to Ashes, dust to dust , hitler read ye well. ?
This video is a monument to ignorance of Buddhism
Not really, it just points to how difficult it is to get rid of desires and to what lengths people are willing to go to hold on to them.
Can't blame the video; it was Nietzsche who had no understanding of Buddhism, and this video is primarily about Nietzsche.
Buddhism can't be understood intellectually. It can only be understood experientially.
Concepts, as used in this video, only take us further from the truth of what the Buddha taught.
I don’t really see how this legitimately discredits Nietzsche’s take on Buddhism. Attempting to live a life devoid of attachment out a fear of suffering is life denying in his eyes. Buddhists do not only deny life they also essentially wait to become nothing, die, or in other words “depart from a life of suffering.” Buddhism is a nihilism in a real sense. Because to deny life is to be a nihilist and suffering is a part of life meant to be conquered and mastered not let go of.
Research into the middle way that takes suffering into it's proper place. Research the difference between the Bodhisattva and the Mahasattva as end goals of reaching Nirvana.
life is devoid of attachment because theres nothing to hold onto.. because all aggregates are empty.
life is created by creative illusion a.k.a maya.
you clearly know nothing about buddhism and your talking a lot of rubbish.
Buddha himself was against nihilism and commented on it. Also, Buddhism is not life-denying or void of attachment. Research before making comments.
Buddha could as well have said that life is Sukkha as whether it is one or the other is purely a matter of reception.
Buddhism is only one half of what hinduism is, not wrong as such but incomplete.
Buddha himself seems to have been inspired by an uncontrollable rage against Brahminism
Western philosophy meanwhile is fairly trivial set beside the internal disputes of Indian thought.
Well.... Buddhism was actually derived from Hinduism....
So what ?
Grow up man!